Search

Purpose: This study compared endoscopic carpal tunnel release with the conventional open technique with respect to short- and long-term improvements in functional and clinical outcomes. Methods: We assessed 72 outpatients diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome. Of these patients, 37 underwent the endoscopic method according to Chow and 35 were assigned to the open method. Improvement in symptoms, severity, and functionality were evaluated at 2 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, and 1 year postoperatively. Changes in clinical outcomes were evaluated at 1 year postoperatively. Complications were also assessed. Results: Both groups showed similar improvement in all but 1 outcome 1 year after the release; increase in grip strength was significantly higher in the endoscopic group. However, the endoscopic method showed a greater improvement in symptoms and functional status compared with the open method at 2 days, 1 week, and 2 weeks postoperatively. Separate analysis of the questions referring to pain showed that the delay in improvement in the open group was because of the persistence of pain for a longer period. Paresthesias and numbness decrease immediately after the operation with comparable rates for both groups. Conclusions: Endoscopic carpal tunnel release provides a faster recovery to operated patients for the first 2 weeks, with faster relief of pain and faster improvement in functional abilities. Paresthesia and numbness subside in an identical manner with the 2 techniques. At 1 year postoperatively, both open and endoscopic techniques seem to be equivalently efficient. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVE To examine if bracing can restrict tibial rotation in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient patients during high loading activities. DESIGN Repeated measures. Kinematic data were collected with an 8-camera Vicon system while each patient performed 2 tasks that are known to cause increased rotational and translational loads on the knee: (1) descending from a stair and subsequent pivoting, and (2) landing from a platform and subsequent pivoting. The tasks were repeated under 3 brace conditions for the ACL-deficient knee: (1) wearing a prophylactic brace (braced condition), (2) wearing a patellofemoral brace (sleeved condition), and (3) without brace (unbraced condition). SETTING Biomechanical laboratory study. PATIENTS Twenty-one male subjects with a confirmed unilateral ACL rupture were assessed in vivo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Tibial internal rotation. Two repeated measures ANOVAs tested for differences in tibial internal rotation among the 3 conditions of the ACL-deficient knee and the unbraced condition of the intact knee. RESULTS In both tasks, tibial rotation was significantly lower in the intact knee compared with all 3 conditions of the ACL-deficient knee (P ≤ 0.031). Bracing the ACL-deficient knee resulted in lower rotation than the unbraced (P ≤ 0.001) and sleeved (P ≤ 0.033) conditions. The sleeved condition resulted in lower tibial rotation in the drop landing and pivoting task compared with the unbraced condition (P = 0.019) but not in the stair descending and pivoting task (P = 0.256). CONCLUSIONS Bracing decreased the excessive tibial rotation in ACL-deficient patients during high-demand activities but failed to fully restore normative values. If knee braces can enhance rotational knee stability in ACL-deficient patients, then they could possibly play an important role in preventing further knee pathology in such patients.